Worksoft Certify Reviews

The primary use case would be for automating SAP. We did attempt to automate some non-SAP processes, but had mixed results. We do have some areas which are already using it for RPA-like use cases.

We use this solution mostly for end-to-end testing of SAP.

These are some cases where automation helped:

1. Mostly in the area of project testing, the most immediate benefit is when you historically have manual testers do a certain job, and a full regression testing was previously done 100 percent manually. We have had cases where the release testing for an entire region would take around 12 weeks. With Worksoft, we are now down to two to three weeks.
2. The second benefit would be production execution runs. This would be where we run test cases to do certain transactions, like mergers and acquisitions. Or with asset migrations, there are hundreds and hundreds of lines of assets, that we just need to set up, which can be done by Worksoft.

Codeless automation helps speed things up, versus previous automation tools. It is easier for people to automate.

First, product stability needs major improvements. Our projects get delayed and our executions fail because the product is not stable enough.  We hear consistent reports of performance issues, Execution Manager crashes, and so on.  What is not helping is Worksoft's ability to respond to issues. They do not have clear SLA's on when issues get closed.  We have had High criticality issues that were open for months.

Second, there are mixed results for non-SAP Automation.  We tried to do web UI testing on SAP Fiori and some internal applications, but the results were mixed. In some cases, we are able to automate, but it takes a very long time to do it. There are other cases where we totally couldn't do it or our customers back out somehow, because of the length of time or limitations of the technology. Also, Worksoft testability assessments take quite awhile.

The stability is very bad. We have a lot of projects, which are run by our service integrators offshore in India. There have been performance issues, system crashes, etc.

While we recovered from these, it does not give me confidence, because it is happening every week or two.

Scalability is still to be seen. We have seen a lot of performance issues, so I cannot say for now. From a technical standpoint, it seems relatively easy to scale and we have attempted to do so. However our developers report frequent performance issues and system crashes.  We have not made Automator's mode work after one year in Worksoft. So in theory, it works, but if these issues persist, it does not give me the confidence to scale out another 100 projects.

Our experience has not been good. There are no SLA's for issue resolution which is an issue for a large enterprise customer like us. For us, there needs to be a certain level of reliability and predictability when things go wrong. We are not getting this today because of lack of SLA's.

We used to do UFT, which was a pain to maintain. 

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. However, we noticed that there were a lot of issues with the configurations and we needed to work back with Worksoft support.

We mostly deployed it ourselves. We had some consulting services from Worksoft. They helped in the initial set up, especially with setting up the Best Practices.

Automating our manual processes has saved us 70 to 80 percent of manual effort.

We evaluated Worksoft vs Tricentis. Our criteria for evaluation:

• Cost
• Internal experience and experience of other customers
• The company as a strategic fit with us for the long-term. 

We applied percentages across these criteria, with cost having the highest percentage. Because of our company's profile which was majority SAP, we chose Worksoft. This is with full knowledge of Worksoft's technical limitations versus tools like Tosca.

Today, our team recently launched Selenium. This is because of technical limitations with Worksoft. 

Test automation is a must for any company. It is not just about the tool. It is about the processes, how you maintain it, run it, and how you respond if you have any issues. The toolset that you choose must support the entire ecosystem for the automation process. You need to have an engagement model, robust lifecycle, and sustainable executions.

We used Worksoft Certify with SAP ECC and Fiori applications in the beginning. We extended that to the ServiceNow application. We have up to 15 modules in ServiceNow with 750 test cases. Our regression testing suite is around a 1000 processes.

Previously, the business was spending a lot of time on processes. So, we started automating and executing these processes on a weekly basis. Last year, we had planned and resourced only one major upgrade, but due to this automation work, we were able to add one extra upgrade.

It provides a lot of time savings. We are always ready to execute a task whenever the business asks us. We saved approximately 7000 hours in 2018.

The solution is easy to use.

The stability has been good, so far.

The scalability has been good. At first, we targeted complete automation only for ECC systems. Then, we extended it to CRM and ServiceNow, not only for the North American region, but for the European and Asian regions, as well. Our company is global, and our next regional rollout will be Latin America.

The level of technical support depends on the engineer who comes to the call. I'm not really happy with it. I want to have quick response for my issues. I'm not the technical person. I'm paying for them to support me. 

They come on, and say, "Oh, so-and-so link is here, go through that link, and make the modifications." I'm not comfortable in making those changes. I want to schedule a call, share my screen, and have them fix it for me. That would be a beneficial time savings for both of us.

We were using UFT before Worksoft and were not happy. UFT was too technical. We wanted to switch over to an easier tool, which was how we switched to Worksoft.

The initial setup went well. It was straightforward. We wrote all down instructions and procedures that we need to have before the installation. Once we had everything in hand, the configuration was easy.

Worksoft did the deployment. They were awesome. 

We worked with Charlene Smith. She did the installation for us.

We saved $1.3 million using Worksoft Certify in 2017. 

Our 2018 numbers aren't available yet.

We are not using Capture 2.0 at this point, because we don't have a Worksoft Analyze license.

This solution came to us as part of IBM ELA Worldwide. The company had ELA at that time and told us that this was part of our ELA, "Why don't you go try it out?" We did a PoC, and we liked it. Without a second thought, we signed up for it.

I definitely recommend Worksoft Certify. We went with a vendor and have seen a lot of problems with it, so go with the best partner for automation. I also want to advise to go with the best practices, as there is a difference technically when you follow the best practices. 

We have integrated Worksoft Certify with Micro Focus ALM. From ALM, we execute some tasks from Micro Focus Quality Center.

Our test maintenance time is really low at this point. In the beginning, we were having around a 30 percent of failure test cases and spending a lot of time on those test maintenance cases. Now, there is less than ten percent failed. We use Execution Manager, and once the execution is done, we spend time on the less than ten percent of failed test cases failed. For the last six months, we have not crossed more than ten percent.

The primary use case is more on SAP for automating all our manual business work, as well as doing regression testing. We do end-to-end regression testing on SAP.

The product has worked very well with SAP.

Worksoft is used for manual processes that needed to be automated. This has helped us make our processes be faster and more efficient because there are no manual interruptions or errors.

For my processes, Worksoft makes them faster when creating scripts.

Capture 2.0 is a very good feature, on which we can record very easily and get documentation generation and testing acceleration. 

The product had some UI issues. In the next release I heard the UI issues will be lifted up (version 11), I am excited about it because the product will have more UI features. We are thinking of upgrading our existing Worksoft Certify from 9 to 11, when it is released, as this will be good for the company and help all our users.

The stability is pretty good what I have used sofar with SAP

The scalability is good.

The technical support is pretty good. If you open a ticket, they are able to answer it within 24 hours. They are able to support us.

We previously did manually testing and used other tools. With Worksoft, we can more see the productivity and benefits that it provides. We can also do more testing, making easier for all the users. 

We used the Worksoft for the deployment. They came and helped us. We have a good relationship with them.

Worksoft Certify is an investment. We see value in it more than the money. We see value in it because the user can look at different aspects of testing and what they can do.

This solution has enabled us to automate in order to tremendously save time. Only first time when you are recording and creating the script will you spend some time with it, the rest of the time, you are just executing. If we do one manual process, it could take approximately two hours. The same process using Worksoft probably takes ten minutes.

It help cut test maintenance time too. An eight hour manually project using Worksoft can be done in an hour.

Worksoft is good for SAP to do your automation and testing.

We are not using it for web UI testing.

We use it for SAP and ERP. I think from the SAP and ERP point of view, it is very good.

When we used it for web based application, so it was quite poor.

One, it's module based and it's giving functionality. That is, first of all we can really implement it as an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning). We can utilize our concept and our functional people to work with the tool and without having a lot of technical knowledge, so they can really work with the tool with small technical knowledge. So that's really a big thing for us. We can use the tool with our existing people so that we don't need to have a new technical expert using the tool.

It is poor for a web based application. We are living in very integrated organization are most of the companies out there. There's the big companies we have these organizations that we work with, where we have plenty of different services which are very much connected. So, we are really looking solution which really can support all the different services. We really need to focus end to end instead of stand alone case. 

Whatever reportings are there, so they're really not very user-friendly. So there is a lot of technical data instead of user-friendly data. It would be wonderful to add web support, I would really like to see this in the future.

If I would evaluate it on a scale of one to seven, I would give it a seven. 

It's not very scalable. 

They struggle to provide an accurate solution.

I think it was not really very difficult. It was quite easy to set up the tool. The architectural tool was really easy.

We define certain different criteria. We check if the vendor is giving support for the tool, and we also evaluate the price. Of course, we also take note of the ROI of the solution.

This product is a good one, if you are really focusing as an ERP. We really need to have a solution which is really end to end rather than just focusing on key product. It's good to be aware if there something that can support you end to end rather than one specific product.

When talking about continuous testing, so then the tool is not really good at all because you need to purchase some additional tools. For example, the Execution Manager and  other tools, which are an additional cost. 

Another added cost is the payment necessity for reporting.

We are using it so far for regression testing. We have reduced 5% to 10% of regression related issues. This is a huge impact on our organization. So that's really quite good improvement in our eyes.

The reporting feature is something we look forward to. Also, the Worksoft training that we have done was mainly on the web application along with SAP, SNOW, and Silverlight integrations with the tool. It works efficiently with any tool. The projects we mainly used were for the testing of SAP applications over the web. 

Automating the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) process is the most valuable feature of this tool which helps us save loads of time for our clients on the projects and also generating testing and other reports.

We are doing Worksoft Online Training and also take up various Worksoft automation testing projects. I have totally trained about 50 participants on this tool. Most of the trainees are happy to learn and use this product in their jobs now. We have also done two projects, one for retail sales chain and another for a banking project. Both of the projects were delivered on time and the clients are happy to generate some automated OOB reports and also create their own Receipts. The clients were happy with our timelines and also with the training we offered at the end of the implementation.

Most of the features are good. However, being codeless is the best feature that makes it easy to use for those who have done any coding but understand simple English like commands. Anyone with basic knowledge of using a basic tool can learn and implement the solutions with Worksoft. This is why we have been able to train so many consultants on this tool and they use the same in their jobs currently and keep referring us for more candidates. We recommend using this tool for your automation testing projects.

Pricing is a bit high and we would like to have the availability of a trail environment for beginners and training would be great to have and easier to expand and use by more and more consultants.

The bigger reports needs to be more customized by the tool for better use, also tool also can be further simplified by a better Graphical user interface (GUI) will help us a great deal while taking up projects. 

We look forward for these upgrades so we can enjoy using the tool more and help others learn this tool.

I have been using this for the past three years. It has evolved as a codeless automation tool for testing. We used sed 10.0.1 and are currently using 11. 

We have also used few other tools for our trainings. 

ROI is pretty good so far.

We would like to have a cheaper version for a single user/trail version of the same for our trainings. The cloud based environment should be available free for the trainings for 15 days or so.

We do trainings on a needed basis so we understand the demand of various tools in the market. We strongly believe while Worksoft is a good tool it is losing its potential a bit to other tools in the market. The demand for training has gone down in the last two years.

It is not for the entire automation process. It is mainly for anything which needs to be automated. Instead of just replacing human work, which it is doing now. It also includes robotic process automation for when we are replacing centralize manual work.

Our clients use Worksoft Certify for end-to-end testing of packaged applications and web UI testing of modern applications.

I have been using BPP and Execution Manager for more than seven years. I sell the product to different clients.

It is a great improvement, especially from my client side, where I have implemented it. One of my clients wanted to replace weekend production and support. They were using mini applications that did not need to work on the weekends. So, it was purely replaced with Certify's automation, so they did not need to come into the office on the weekends. This saves a lot of time and frees employees up on weekends.

The tool itself is a great tool. There are some other tool out there which support only web applications as opposed to only Windows-based applications, etc. It is a huge improvement, as it recognizes complex general applications, where most tools won't recognize the objects within them.

It is very easy to use, but there are some places where they need to improve their security. E.g., the BPP tool is just a URL, which does not ask you for a username and password. Anyone can login and can see it. This is a challenge.

Regarding the Execution Manager, which is good, since it comes with a username, password, etc. However, once you are logged inside, anyone can execute anything. It shouldn't allow this. Worksoft should create restrictions at the folder level structures, or somewhere they know they can align only few people to do the job, instead of allowing anyone do anything that they like.

The stability is good.

The scalability is working well for our needs.

The technical support is good. I would like them to get straight to the problem and provide solutions instead of asking a thousand questions.

Worksoft Certify has a very simple language. Our clients want to save on cost and ensure everyone who is manual testing knows it takes more effort.

The solution has cut our clients' test maintenance time for changes, like patches or system upgrades. They used to take a lot of time until the production validation completed. Now, it is just seconds until it is ready, so they can do executions within couple of minutes. 

This solution has enabled our clients to automate and save time (approximately 40 to 50 percent).

The product has saved our clients' money

The product works well with SAP and non-SAP products.

Use this tool. It is really good.

The primary use case is regression testing and test automation.

We use this solution for end-to-end testing of packaged applications, like SAP, ServiceNow, and some in-house web apps (which we built).

We have already found some defects using the test automation. 

One of the bigger value-adds that we had was extracting data from our warning systems to be inputted into our new learning system.

We automated because of the value. Our business users do a lot of regression testing. They often don't have the time when we need to get the testing done, so this frees them up to do more value-added work for the company.

• Speed, as far as getting tests completed on time. 
• Its ease of use and the value of that. It is a lot easier to maintain test scripts on Worksoft Certify than on other testing tools that we have had in the past.

We have had run ins with some bugs on Business Process Procedure (BPP) and Execution Manager. 

We also did upgrade Worksoft Certify recently to clear up some issues with server fogging.

More than five years.

It scales pretty well.

I would rate technical support as a seven out of ten. Sometimes, we end up going back and forth with Level 1 support. Usually, if we go back and forth, it is email most of the time, and sometimes it is once a day with 24-hour turnaround. We usually understand what they require and trying to give as much information as possible. We still need to tell them to kick it up to Level 2 support or at least have a meeting with them, so we can show them what is going on. Sometimes, it does get a little frustrating, but once we either have the meeting or get Level 2 support, the issue gets resolved pretty quickly.

We had and still use QuickTest Professional from Micro Focus a little bit, but we were approached back in 2008 about getting into Worksoft Certify.

We went with Worksoft Certify because of its ease of use. You don't have to know a scripting language, like with QuickTest Professional. Also, it has ease of maintenance.

The initial setup was not really complex, just a little. We did not understand the full setup; it was just confusing. We really didn't get a full explanation of how things connected together until we actually started to use it. Once, we start using it, things became much clearer.

During the initial deployment where we received execution suite, the necessary information was not really provided. However, it was a fast deployment. We had to meet some deadlines, so people just came in and did the installs, or helped us do the installs over the phone, then afterwards we realized how things were connected.

We used Worksoft for the deployment, who was very good.

We have seen ROI by being able to free up and give time back to the business for other value-added work.

In 2008, we evaluated SAP TAO. The person who came in to do the proof on concept wasn't able to get the test scenario working at all. He had three and a half days to do it, and he couldn't do it. When Worksoft came in, they had the same length of time and were able to get that one plus another one partially working in the same time frame.

Worksoft generally seems to want to make sure you are successful at what you are trying to do. I haven't come across an employee from Worksoft that isn't willing to help. A lot of times you do get that from other salespeople, and that is just not the case from what I have seen from Worksoft. 

The product has a lot of benefits as far as getting testing done. It gives you some value back.

The company is using it across our IT landscape on different projects. We use it to test web applications, SAP mainly. Right now, we're doing a big conversion project. The one that I am working on is a big conversion from an old mainframe system over to SAP. Thus, we are using it to automate all the UAT test cases.

We have also used it in other areas of the company for ServiceNow upgrades and general web design stuff.

For this SAP upgrade or implementation, the business users are creating building blocks in their areas, then they're changing the building blocks into long end-to-end scripts to do a complete end-to-end testing to speed up the UAT. It definitely has a bigger coverage of UAT testing.

• It is user-friendly. We can give the tool to business users, and they're able to use the tool pretty efficiently without a whole lot of training. 
• The reporting features are nice. 
• It is easy to take someone else's work and manipulate it to use yourself. 
  
• It is not heavily code-based, so you can pick it up and automate very quickly.

For Execution Manager, I would like it to be more robust interface and be able to view the remote machines full screen instead of a little window. This would be a great upgrade for us.

I would also like more customized reports without having to print out big reports.

It is a very stable product. When we have had upgrades, it's been pretty seamless. Older versions of our scripts work in the newest update without a lot of rework.

It is very scalable with users. We have business users who are scripting. We have Worksoft developers who do more complicated work. Then, it moves over to the people who do execution and process through Execution Manager, so we have several different layers of users doing different tasks.

The technical support is very good. They are very responsive. When we have created tickets with them, there is usually a 24-hour turnaround time, then we are contacted back. Their interface is good for back and forth communication.

It is not practical to do manual testing anymore due to the volume of it. The amount of data variations is too great to test manually. If we were going to do it manually, we definitely would not have full coverage, where now we can get pretty close to full coverage on our tests.

When you are implementing Worksoft Certify, it is probably best to bring some Worksoft consultants in to help get you setup, and set it properly. Because if you don't get your initial systems, like your folder structures and your naming conventions, set at the beginning, there is a lot of rework to get it to work. We did have to go through that.

We save probably 50 percent of our time. The tool does what it's supposed to do, and we are able to actually work.

Worksoft Certify is a good product. The customer support is really helpful and supportive. They are always upgrading their products to new features, which we like. It is a pretty stable tool, which doesn't require a lot of maintenance.

Our environment has SAP Fiori. They are also doing a HANA implementation. As far as the web, I don't work on that side as much.

I haven't used the Capture 2.0 very much.